If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post. To do so, click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please do not post any copyrighted images or content without permission from the owner of those images or content. If you are unsure if an image or content is copyright protected, do not post it. When posting images from Google's image search, be sure to utilize the ability to filter by Usage Rights. This is located under Tools > Usage Rights. Any materials that infringe on any owner's Intellectual Property rights will be promptly removed.

That demand is already there but there isn't really the choice. I also believe that DSL is only available if you have a home phone line no? fewer and fewer people actually have those now. everyone has a cellphone.

The demand is not there, at least not pressing enough for companies to think it's worth the investment to build the widespread infrastructure. At best, fiber is a convenience that some folks take advantage of because there's no real good reason to switch from a current ISP.

If you have a cellphone with a data plan, that's more than sufficient for meeting internet "needs."

If the same people who provide high speed internet also sell TV service (they do), then you can bet once NN is gone, those same people will throttle the bandwidth to their TV service competition. That's the only reason ISPs care about NN at all. If this was just a matter of bandwidth usage, they'd simply go with a flat cap over a time period. 100 GB a month. Or what ever. Then they would tier out additional plans and even an unlimited plan. Same thing if the pipe was getting clogged at certain times. Limit the size of the pipe overall.

ISPs want to be able to blackmail services like Netflix and Hulu who have created business models that depend on cheap, high speed internet access. Hey, Netflix, you don't want us to throttle your data? Give us a kick back. And Netflix will pay, because they'll have to. And when Netflix pays, guess who's going to foot that additional cost? Subscribers.

ISPs want to be able to blackmail services like Netflix and Hulu who have created business models that depend on cheap, high speed internet access. Hey, Netflix, you don't want us to throttle your data? Give us a kick back. And Netflix will pay, because they'll have to. And when Netflix pays, guess who's going to foot that additional cost? Subscribers.

Yes, of course. But this is why I don't think NN is all that influential. At the end of the day, it comes down to paying a few dollars more a month for Netflix.

Yes, of course. But this is why I don't think NN is all that influential. At the end of the day, it comes down to paying a few dollars more a month for Netflix.

it's more than that though.

It's giving ISPs permission to harm other businesses because they conflict with their own interests.

It's giving an ISP the right to say that Website X promotes ideals that we disagree with so we are going to shut them down by not allowing traffic to go there, or sevelerly slowing down traffic that goes there until people give up on trying.

Ending NN doesn't incentivize any kind of competition. There is no competition, and it's the law that says there isn't. It has nothing to do with NN. I think you are basing the connection on what a free market would do, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a free market. It is a market ruled by the companies though. And eliminating NN only increases their influece and control.

It's giving ISPs permission to harm other businesses because they conflict with their own interests.

It's giving an ISP the right to say that Website X promotes ideals that we disagree with so we are going to shut them down by not allowing traffic to go there, or sevelerly slowing down traffic that goes there until people give up on trying.

Ending NN doesn't incentivize any kind of competition. There is no competition, and it's the law that says there isn't. It has nothing to do with NN. I think you are basing the connection on what a free market would do, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a free market. It is a market ruled by the companies though. And eliminating NN only increases their influece and control.

No, it's not more than that.

Uh, welcome to Earth? This is business 101 around the world and ISPs are private companies, they can do that if they want. This is EXACTLY how television works, and there's all kinds of competition.

No, ending NN on it's own doesn't incentivize competition. I never said it does. But what a byproduct of that would be is that, if prices go up so much that consumers don't want to stick with their ISP, a public demand increases. All of a sudden, local govts. have much more pressure to enable new ISPs. It's a market ruled by companies only because those companies have done enough to prevent consumers from walking away entirely, and even that isn't working anymore. Trying to end NN is a DESPERATE move by ISPs to continue cornering the market - but it won't work because younger consumers move to more favorable marketplaces way more quickly than older folks. And not for nothing, this is why I keep saying that monopolies is the issue to begin with. NN is a band-aid that doesn't really accomplish anything. You can preserve it for now, but it's only a matter of time before cable lobbyists get some other change made in their favor. It's what they always do.

But regardless of all that, let me ask you this question. If you own a trucking company, are you going to ship packages from, say, Amazon - who is the consumer in this case - for free? No, you're not. Additionally, are you going to charge the same for a 2 lb. book as you would for a 200 lb. couch? No. Like it or not, ISPs own the trucks that allow Netflix to deliver shows to us, so of course they should charge, and they have every right to charge consumers based on how much bandwidth they require. If you keep NN, you're allowing the trucking company to blame the govt. when they can't afford to upgrade their trucks, because they weren't allowed to charge more for heavy shipments. ISPs are already slowing down speeds so that they don't have to spend money to update their infrastructure, and that's exactly how they're going to leverage throttling sites like Netflix. The marketing writes itself..."The $15 dollar package for streaming access will allow Time Warner to invest in infrastructure that provides better service that allows you and your whole family to enjoy your favorite programming uninterrupted blah blah blah."

Complaining about the death of NN is, and will always be, a shortsighted, dollar value savings for people who don't want to pay more to watch TV. Any other complaints are simply concerns with how capitalism works and the fact that the govt. has done a piss-poor job of regulating ISPs. NN does not change any of that and doesn't even come close to getting to the root of the cause. It does nothing but perpetuate the shitty internet we all have now.

Uh, welcome to Earth? This is business 101 around the world and ISPs are private companies, they can do that if they want. This is EXACTLY how television works, and there's all kinds of competition.

No, ending NN on it's own doesn't incentivize competition. I never said it does. But what a byproduct of that would be is that, if prices go up so much that consumers don't want to stick with their ISP, a public demand increases. All of a sudden, local govts. have much more pressure to enable new ISPs. It's a market ruled by companies only because those companies have done enough to prevent consumers from walking away entirely, and even that isn't working anymore. Trying to end NN is a DESPERATE move by ISPs to continue cornering the market - but it won't work because younger consumers move to more favorable marketplaces way more quickly than older folks. And not for nothing, this is why I keep saying that monopolies is the issue to begin with. NN is a band-aid that doesn't really accomplish anything. You can preserve it for now, but it's only a matter of time before cable lobbyists get some other change made in their favor. It's what they always do.

But regardless of all that, let me ask you this question. If you own a trucking company, are you going to ship packages from, say, Amazon - who is the consumer in this case - for free? No, you're not. Additionally, are you going to charge the same for a 2 lb. book as you would for a 200 lb. couch? No. Like it or not, ISPs own the trucks that allow Netflix to deliver shows to us, so of course they should charge, and they have every right to charge consumers based on how much bandwidth they require. If you keep NN, you're allowing the trucking company to blame the govt. when they can't afford to upgrade their trucks, because they weren't allowed to charge more for heavy shipments. ISPs are already slowing down speeds so that they don't have to spend money to update their infrastructure, and that's exactly how they're going to leverage throttling sites like Netflix. The marketing writes itself..."The $15 dollar package for streaming access will allow Time Warner to invest in infrastructure that provides better service that allows you and your whole family to enjoy your favorite programming uninterrupted blah blah blah."

Complaining about the death of NN is, and will always be, a shortsighted, dollar value savings for people who don't want to pay more to watch TV. Any other complaints are simply concerns with how capitalism works and the fact that the govt. has done a piss-poor job of regulating ISPs. NN does not change any of that and doesn't even come close to getting to the root of the cause. It does nothing but perpetuate the shitty internet we all have now.

You have a monopoly because at the end of the day, there's not enough money in just the internet delivery end of things. It worked for Cable companies because they were using their own current infrastructure to deliver, same with telecoms. They have the poles, they have the wires. They're just adding a new service over the same infrastructure.

A new player trying to run their own is very difficult. Google is trying, and they're going at a snail's pace.

You have a monopoly because at the end of the day, there's not enough money in just the internet delivery end of things. It worked for Cable companies because they were using their own current infrastructure to deliver, same with telecoms. They have the poles, they have the wires. They're just adding a new service over the same infrastructure.

A new player trying to run their own is very difficult. Google is trying, and they're going at a snail's pace.

I understand that - they're only moving slowly because they have a ton of pressure to increase margins. There's many smaller ISPs out there as well but they constantly get choked out by litigation from the bigger ISPs.

Public demand for them and a willingness to pay up-front costs as a means of long-term savings would expedite that process. Using Rochester as an example...Greenlight provides fiber for $50 a month, but you have to spend $100 on installation. The higher number of people willing to do that, the more neighborhoods Greenlight will be in and the faster they can move to others.

Uh, welcome to Earth? This is business 101 around the world and ISPs are private companies, they can do that if they want. This is EXACTLY how television works, and there's all kinds of competition.

No, ending NN on it's own doesn't incentivize competition. I never said it does. But what a byproduct of that would be is that, if prices go up so much that consumers don't want to stick with their ISP, a public demand increases. All of a sudden, local govts. have much more pressure to enable new ISPs. It's a market ruled by companies only because those companies have done enough to prevent consumers from walking away entirely, and even that isn't working anymore. Trying to end NN is a DESPERATE move by ISPs to continue cornering the market - but it won't work because younger consumers move to more favorable marketplaces way more quickly than older folks. And not for nothing, this is why I keep saying that monopolies is the issue to begin with. NN is a band-aid that doesn't really accomplish anything. You can preserve it for now, but it's only a matter of time before cable lobbyists get some other change made in their favor. It's what they always do.

But regardless of all that, let me ask you this question. If you own a trucking company, are you going to ship packages from, say, Amazon - who is the consumer in this case - for free? No, you're not. Additionally, are you going to charge the same for a 2 lb. book as you would for a 200 lb. couch? No. Like it or not, ISPs own the trucks that allow Netflix to deliver shows to us, so of course they should charge, and they have every right to charge consumers based on how much bandwidth they require. If you keep NN, you're allowing the trucking company to blame the govt. when they can't afford to upgrade their trucks, because they weren't allowed to charge more for heavy shipments. ISPs are already slowing down speeds so that they don't have to spend money to update their infrastructure, and that's exactly how they're going to leverage throttling sites like Netflix. The marketing writes itself..."The $15 dollar package for streaming access will allow Time Warner to invest in infrastructure that provides better service that allows you and your whole family to enjoy your favorite programming uninterrupted blah blah blah."

Complaining about the death of NN is, and will always be, a shortsighted, dollar value savings for people who don't want to pay more to watch TV. Any other complaints are simply concerns with how capitalism works and the fact that the govt. has done a piss-poor job of regulating ISPs. NN does not change any of that and doesn't even come close to getting to the root of the cause. It does nothing but perpetuate the shitty internet we all have now.

I'm confused by your points, because on one hand you are clearly against NN but on the other hand you seem to unwittingly support it? For the bolded section, preserving NN is exactly what says they won't be able to do that.

You complain about the regulations, which is a completely fair point, I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that. But you are equating Net Neutrality to some new regulation when it is exactly the opposite of that. keeping NN changes nothing. I'm not saying that should be the end of how we approach ISPs. I'd obviously like to see those BS anti-free market laws overturned and allow for competition, but again, and I can't stress this enough. There is nothing about the issue of net neutrality which has any impact, positive or negative, on the regional monopolies of ISPs. The debate on NN is about saying, should ISPs have the right to throttle services to sites they decide they don't want people to go to? What if an evangelical becomes CEO of Time Warner (Spectrum) and decides that their service won't allow access to ungodly things? is that ok? What if it gets run by a crazy liberal democrat who decides to block access to, or make you pay extra to go to conservative news sites? is that ok? because that's what the debate is about. It's not about regional monopolies at all.

I understand that - they're only moving slowly because they have a ton of pressure to increase margins. There's many smaller ISPs out there as well but they constantly get choked out by litigation from the bigger ISPs.

Public demand for them and a willingness to pay up-front costs as a means of long-term savings would expedite that process. Using Rochester as an example...Greenlight provides fiber for $50 a month, but you have to spend $100 on installation. The higher number of people willing to do that, the more neighborhoods Greenlight will be in and the faster they can move to others.

I think at the end of the day, there's a huge difference between, let's say Verizon, and some small podunk ISP in rural Colorado that's trying to service 1,000 people over 10,000 acres. They should be treated differently. If a tiny ISP needs to throttle Netflix traffic during prime time because it's just too much for them to handle, and the other option is they go out of business and now those 1,000 people don't have anything, then fine.

I'm confused by your points, because on one hand you are clearly against NN but on the other hand you seem to unwittingly support it? For the bolded section, preserving NN is exactly what says they won't be able to do that.

You complain about the regulations, which is a completely fair point, I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that. But you are equating Net Neutrality to some new regulation when it is exactly the opposite of that. keeping NN changes nothing. I'm not saying that should be the end of how we approach ISPs. I'd obviously like to see those BS anti-free market laws overturned and allow for competition, but again, and I can't stress this enough. There is nothing about the issue of net neutrality which has any impact, positive or negative, on the regional monopolies of ISPs. The debate on NN is about saying, should ISPs have the right to throttle services to sites they decide they don't want people to go to? What if an evangelical becomes CEO of Time Warner (Spectrum) and decides that their service won't allow access to ungodly things? is that ok? What if it gets run by a crazy liberal democrat who decides to block access to, or make you pay extra to go to conservative news sites? is that ok? because that's what the debate is about. It's not about regional monopolies at all.

No, you're misunderstanding that reference. That quote is what they will do when they aren't able to throttle. As the need for bandwidth increases, ISPs will say that they can't afford to invest in new infrastructure because they can't charge more for the services that use the most bandwidth. They don't have that leverage when there isn't NN.

How can you say that NN doesn't have an impact on monopolies when you also say that, without it, the monopolies will get even stronger? I'm not saying that NN is new or see how it even matters...but it is. It wasn't enacted until 2015.

As far as the examples you mention - yea, those people can block access to whatever they want, assuming it doesn't violate the contract that customers sign. If TW's CEO doesn't want to let you stream porn, fine. That's no different than DirecTV not carrying the Time Warner Sports channel. It's not a govt. entity, he can do what he wants. That only becomes problematic when TW has a monopoly and nobody can watch porn. Which is exactly why all the energy being devoted to NN should be going towards removing anti-capitalist regulations and dropping the hammer on corporations who use frivolous lawsuits to stunt new ISPs. NN is surface deep. In the long term it won't change much of anything. Allowing true competition would have all the same impact as NN with the added bonus of lower prices and higher quality, never ending until a massive sunspot fries the planet's entire electrical grid lol.

I think at the end of the day, there's a huge difference between, let's say Verizon, and some small podunk ISP in rural Colorado that's trying to service 1,000 people over 10,000 acres. They should be treated differently. If a tiny ISP needs to throttle Netflix traffic during prime time because it's just too much for them to handle, and the other option is they go out of business and now those 1,000 people don't have anything, then fine.

But Verizon doesn't need to throttle bandwidth.

It doesn't matter whether they need to or not. They're going to make the argument that they have to because it is more expensive to provide a lot more bandwidth. They've already stopped investing in infrastructure - there's less broadband availability now than in 2015, and they're all going to point to NN as to the reason why. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant, because with NN the government handed ISPs the ability to hold consumers hostage with shitty service until they get regulations they want. It's why NN was shortsighted and misguided to begin with.

No, you're misunderstanding that reference. That quote is what they will do when they aren't able to throttle. As the need for bandwidth increases, ISPs will say that they can't afford to invest in new infrastructure because they can't charge more for the services that use the most bandwidth. They don't have that leverage when there isn't NN.

How can you say that NN doesn't have an impact on monopolies when you also say that, without it, the monopolies will get even stronger? I'm not saying that NN is new or see how it even matters...but it is. It wasn't enacted until 2015.

As far as the examples you mention - yea, those people can block access to whatever they want, assuming it doesn't violate the contract that customers sign. If TW's CEO doesn't want to let you stream porn, fine. That's no different than DirecTV not carrying the Time Warner Sports channel. It's not a govt. entity, he can do what he wants. That only becomes problematic when TW has a monopoly and nobody can watch porn. Which is exactly why all the energy being devoted to NN should be going towards removing anti-capitalist regulations and dropping the hammer on corporations who use frivolous lawsuits to stunt new ISPs. NN is surface deep. In the long term it won't change much of anything. Allowing true competition would have all the same impact as NN with the added bonus of lower prices and higher quality, never ending until a massive sunspot fries the planet's entire electrical grid lol.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referencing the aspect of them having regional control over certain areas, like how if you live in area x you can only get time warner. NN doesn't change that rule. We are both in agreement that that aspect is completely fucked.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referencing the aspect of them having regional control over certain areas, like how if you live in area x you can only get time warner. NN doesn't change that rule. We are both in agreement that that aspect is completely fucked.

That demand is already there but there isn't really the choice. I also believe that DSL is only available if you have a home phone line no? fewer and fewer people actually have those now. everyone has a cellphone.

We were both saying we hate the regional monopolies right? you are claiming on one part that Net Neutrality protects the regional monopolies and that ending it would open some doors but then are saying now that there are other choices. so im not sure what your point is

FWIW, DSL is no longer considered high speed/broadband internet.

Do you think ISPs should do this?

It's been free and open for 30 years now. Just because someone found a way to shit in their cheerios doesn't mean their government subsidized fiber gets subject to whatever pricing schema they can think of. I'm not thrilled to pay $10 to play a game I paid $60 for, and then another 20 to stream the NHL package I pay 150 for, and then another 10 to play a different game, then 5 more to access reddit. What about people who depend on it for work? oh, sorry, pay an extra $50 a month because of bandwidth caps? Kids going to school without homework because their mom streamed 15 episodes of the Real Housewives of Mosul this month and they couldn't afford more internet?

Not a world I'd vote for.

Hidden Content
Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

All these fucking smart kids are anti this anti that... ya don't think there's ways around that shit if everyone was worse? All the sudden people go dumb when whatever happens to NN happens?

You'll either get better, cheaper providers or you'll hack your Amazon waverider and be better off.

For what it's worth, this is a "for" cause.

I'm sorry you have shit internet. Making it a requirement that every home has at least a 25/3 connection would probably fix that problem. You're not alone; NPR did a phenomenal piece on rural America's problem getting broadband internet and it's terrifying to think that just because you're not in a big city you can't do something as simple as stream your favorite song through Spotify.

Hidden Content
Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

It's been free and open for 30 years now. Just because someone found a way to shit in their cheerios doesn't mean their government subsidized fiber gets subject to whatever pricing schema they can think of. I'm not thrilled to pay $10 to play a game I paid $60 for, and then another 20 to stream the NHL package I pay 150 for, and then another 10 to play a different game, then 5 more to access reddit. What about people who depend on it for work? oh, sorry, pay an extra $50 a month because of bandwidth caps? Kids going to school without homework because their mom streamed 15 episodes of the Real Housewives of Mosul this month and they couldn't afford more internet?

Not a world I'd vote for.

This is basically the drug dealer method. Get them hooked, reel them in and bleed them dry. I have no doubt it will become reality, too. Big TV has been taking it in the ass due to online streaming. They're done with all that. They WILL have your entertainment dollars. One way or another.

Comcast tells the FCC that net neutrality should be voluntary

Last week, thousands of companies and organizations stood up for net neutrality during the Day of Action and as the first round of comments on the FCC's plan to severely cut back protective regulations wraps up, over 8.4 million comments have been filed. Comcast added its comments today and posted its stance online. In sum, it supports the FCC's proposed deregulations but specifically the removal of Title II classifications. Comcast claims it will still support the open internet regardless of the decision but maintains that Title II hurts innovation.

In its support of the rollbacks proposed by the FCC, Comcast said, "Such regulation is entirely unnecessary, outdated, and imposes substantial costs that undermine investment and innovation and undercut efforts to bridge the digital divide and deploy broadband to all Americans." Its dialogue has been to draw a line between net neutrality and the Title II regulations adopted by the FCC in 2015, saying you can have the former without the latter. Comcast even went so far as to say, "While some seem to want to create hysteria that the Internet as we know it will disappear if their preferred regulatory scheme isn't in place, that's just not reality," in a Day of Action post.

As far as innovation is concerned, Comcast claims that an FCC investigation held up its wide release of Stream TV, directly affecting consumers. And in its post today, Comcast heavily promoted statistics on internet growth occurring before 2015, saying the "internet was working very well" prior to the regulations put in place two years ago, but it didn't provide support for the idea that Title II actively hampers innovation or technological growth. And as TechCrunch points out, with such little data to be had in regards to the effects of Title II on innovation, drawing strong conclusions about its negative impact is a little reckless.

However, Comcast continued to claim that regardless of the outcome, it would remain "committed to the core tenets of a free and open internet," and stated, "We've repeatedly pledged from the highest levels of our company — from Comcast Corporation Chairman and CEO Brian Roberts, Comcast Cable President and CEO David Watson, and from me – that we do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content."

Note, however, that senior executive VP David Cohen does not say that Comcast hasn't blocked or slowed use in the past, which it definitely has. In 2009, Comcast settled a lawsuit for $16 million after it was accused of purposefully slowing upload speeds for users of BitTorrent.